Guns – Page 805 – Shall Not Be Questioned

The Lobby That “Has No Equal”

I promise I’m not going to turn this blog into “all GOA criticism all the time,” but I think it’s important to point out to folks in our community just what charlatans they are.Â GOA is correct to raise alarm bells over the Federal Lands Bill, but then you see stuff like this, from their e-mail alert dated today:

The final attempt to protect the Second Amendment from NPS bureaucrats came on a procedural vote in the House that would have made in order an amendment, sponsored by pro-gun Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop (R-UT), to repeal the gun ban.Â That motion failed by a vote of 242-180.

What caught my attention was the fact that the Lands Act passed under a suspension of rules, which means there could be no amendments voted on.Â So how could it be there was a 242-180 vote on an amendment?Â Where is this mysterious vote?Â The answer is here.

This vote is on the resolution to consider the Senate amendments to the original House Bill 146, which tacked on the federal lands omnibus.Â It is not even the final vote that passed, not defeated the resolution which suspended the rules.

What did happen, however, was that there was a vote in the Committee on Rules that would have made an exception for the consideration of the pro-gun amendment by Rep. Hastings.Â You can find it here.Â The motion to create the exception for pro-gun amendments was defeated in the Rules Committee 2-9.Â The representatives who voted against it were:

James P. McGovern (D-MA)
Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL)
Doris O. Matsui (D-CA)
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
Michael Arcuri (D-NY)
Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY)

These are the villains.Â These are the people we need to, as GOA says, “remember in November.”Â This is where we lost the battle.Â We were not “sold out by compromisers this time,” as GOA claims in the same alert.Â If they want to play with the big boys, they need to get this stuff right.

The Democrats control the House and Senate.Â The leadership in the House, and the Rules Committee, are especially anti-gun.Â This has consequences.Â As much as GOA would like to look for demon “compromisers” they missed our real anti-gun enemies on the Rules Committee, and let them off the hook.

Gun Owners of America — sniping at other pro-gun groups and missing the real enemy since 1975!

Will Corzine Sign?

He has some pro-hunting legislation sitting on his desk.Â Will he sign it?Â It’s time for a poll:

[poll 10]

“Guns in America”

Apparently National Geographic has a difficult time doing a story on guns and getting everything right.Â One thing I would note, that Ride Fast mentions as positive:

People shown shooting machine guns were all regular folks enjoying shooting machine guns. Lots of big smiles and fun.

It’s hard to say without some context whether this is positive or negative, but since he saw the show and I didn’t, I’ll take his word on that.Â There is a risk in presenting this issue to the public, in that if you don’t put it in context, you just help promote the Josh Sugarmann canard that public confusion over full auto and semi-auto can only help pass legislation restricting semi-autos.

Machine gun shoots are part of the American gun culture, and I think that story should be told, but it’s hard to trust the media to tell it, and give all the right context.Â I hope they did so in this case.

UPDATE: Looks this was originally aired last December.Â Goes to show how much attention I pay to National Geographic Explorer.

We Need More E-Postal Match Participants

Mr. Completely has the results of the March e-Postal match up.Â Mr. C smoked me by 7 points in the rimfire scoped category, so I took second there, but I took first in centerfire open sights.Â This clearly means we don’t have enough shooters.Â I hope you’ll consider shooting Mr. C’s April match.Â Congratulations to BillL for winning the match overall.

Congratulations to Blackfork

Blackfork got one of his photos used on the cover of USA Shooting Sports magazine.

UPDATE: You know, that’s a lot of rifles in that picture that we’re told have no sporting use.

Alaska Carry Removed from Montana Bill

Dave Hardy reports that the requirement for removing the need for concealed carry permits in incorporated areas in Montana has been removed, and the bill remains as an ordinary castle doctrine bill.

There are activists in Pennsylvania who are exceedingly impatient about this issue, and regularly deride pro-gun politicians and pro-gun groups for not pushing it harder.Â Alaska/Vermont style carry, or carry without the need of a license, has been tried in New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Montana now, without success.Â If we can’t get Alaska/Vermont carry passed in Montana, which already has no restrictions on carry outside of towns and cities, how the hell are we passing it in Pennsylvania?Â Sometimes the votes just aren’t there, and yelling louder isn’t going to make it so.

Just Where Will It Stop?

A hunting blogger recently opened debate about supposed “high-fenced hunting” and preserve hunting. He has since added to it and I haven’t fully caught up. However, based on the opening of the post, I had to say something. My comments focus on the hunting community given the context. But, I think it easily translates into discussions we have about the shooting sports and gun ownership in general. So, without further delay, here it is:

If we, the hunting population start to define what hunting is, where will it stop?

In the spirit of Fark, THIS!

This right here, in my opinion is the biggest threat to hunting. Yes, there are huge legal and cultural threats, too. But, ultimately, when I see the community dividing over really stupid issues (the most divisive and common I see is related to access), that’s where I see the downfall of hunting.

Yes, I recognize that my use of the term “stupid issues” isn’t making the conversation any easier. I realize there are valuable opinions on many sides of any given issue. On the other hand, I want to grab many I have had to deal with by the shoulders and shake them violently while screaming, “Do you want your sport to die, you freakin’ idiot?” But, if it helps, I think the same thing about many sport shooters I encounter, too. :)

In PA, the latest debate was over expanding crossbow use. I kid you not, I met several guys who were more outraged over that decision than they would have been if the had cut all hunting seasons in half. Sebastian was talking to one outdoor writer here who was just laughing about the entire thing. He pointed out that these very same people and groups screamed as loudly about compound bows years ago – and now they would scream bloody murder if you tried to restrict compound bows. Meanwhile, as non-hunters who care about the issue, Sebastian & I are wondering why, if it has the possibility of opening up hunting to a slightly broader audience, bow hunters are seeking to shut it down.

Hunters have got to start getting on the same page if they hope to keep the sport alive for their kids and grandkids. That doesn’t mean that every hunter has to agree on every issue. It means that the first question asked should be whether the subject at hand (property access, apprentice hunting, license changes, rifle/bow/whathever use, preserves, etc.) has an opportunity to open up the sport to new or no longer active participants. If the answer is yes (and it will be most of the time), then the discussion should really just be a matter of weighing the costs and benefits. I think even changing how those issues are debated will get more hunters closer to the same page.

Sorry for such a long comment that doesn’t directly address the issue at hand. But, I think the point you made is particularly relevant to many of the debates in the community.

—

Before any shooters jump on the bandwagon with the idea that we’re superior to hunting in that we don’t have these same divides, that’s simply not true.Â In fact, the perceived divide between shooting and hunting interests is a key example.Â I say perceived because I meet very few hunters who are willing or ready to throw shooters under the bus.Â But, I talk to an awful lot of shooters who make the accusation about hunters and therefore justify throwing hunting issues under the bus in the name of revenge.Â No movement is perfect, and we have divisions within the shooting community, just like they have divisions in the hunting community.Â It’s time to find ways to reshape some of our conversations about internal issues.

Guns Booming Back Home

Another anti-gun Newspaper from the area writes a story on gun sales, this one from Delaware County where I grew up:

Law-abiding gun owners are making sweet sounds for gun shop owners, with sales skyrocketing along with applications for gun permits in the county over concerns President Barack Obama may set his sights on stiffer gun laws after focusing on the economy.

Apparently applications for LTCs in Delaware COunty are up 21.5% in the first two months of the year.

Of the total applications in 2008, 1,875, or 57 percent, were new or first-time applications, according to Sheriff Joseph F. McGinn.

Read the whole thing.Â It’s pretty good coming from the Delco Times.

Self-Destruction From the Other Side

It’s a great relief that when the anti-gun folks actually do show a little grass roots, they are just as self-destructive as we can be.Â State Representative Eddie Washington, in Illinois, took a walk on an important gun control measure, because he thought it gave too much to the gun rights community.Â Their reaction?

With a small group of protesters standing outside his downtown office, Washington told the News-Sun he didn’t vote in favor of House Bill 48 last Wednesday because he didn’t agree with all parts of the bill.

Washington voted “present” on the bill, which failed by a 60 to 55 margin. The bill called for background checks for private firearm sales, though it also featured a number of exemptions, which Washington said he didn’t fully support.

Washington has a history of supporting anti-violence legislation, including helping to secure funding to restore the Cease Fire group.

This guy is one of your best friends, and you’re going to target him because he took a walk on one bill and is holding out for more?Â It gets even nuttier:

She believes he, along with two other black legislators — Rep. Chuck Jackson, Rockford, and Rep. Eddie Lee Jackson, East St. Louis — didn’t vote for the bill because of influence and contributions from the National Rifle Association.

Bishop’s group contends that a $3,000 donation last summer from International Union of Operating Engineer’s Local 150 led to Washington’s indecision, citing the group’s has conservative members and its leaders ties to NRA.

If Vandermyde got them to walk, bravo my good man.Â But I think it’s a safe bet that these legislators aren’t much in the way of influenced by NRA.Â Jennifer Bishop should be reluctant to turn on friends over one vote, after a history of supporting their cause.Â What grass roots army are you going to use to defeat him?Â What happens when he keeps his seat?Â Do you think he won’t be a little pissed you turned on him so quickly?

I’ve seen activists on our side sour good relationships over less, so I’m happy to see these kinds of self-destructive tendencies aren’t just limited to gun rights supporters.

Interesting Second Amendment Case

This case Eugene Volokh highlights challenges part of California’s Welfare and Instutions Code, which bars people who have been involuntarily admitted for mental treatment from possessing firearms for a period of 5 years.Â I believe this section would also apply a federal ban as well.Â The plaintiff in the case went through the normal channels for relief from this type of firearms disability, and was denied.

The question is whether or not a “preponderance of evidence” standard is sufficient to deny Second Amendment rights, or whether a stronger standard, such as “clear and convincing evidence” need to be required for a civil commitment.Â The court reasons:

When evaluating whether the private interest affected by the civil proceeding requires a standard of proof higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard, the courts consider “the nature of the private interest threatened and the permanency of the threatened loss.” (Assuming arguendo the Second Amendment applies to the states, under Heller an individual’s right to possess certain firearms in the home for defensive purposes is of constitutional stature. However, under section 8103, the deprivation of this interest is temporary, lasting for five years. Further, the loss concerns the loss of property, and does not involve deprivation of physical liberty or severance of familial ties. The deprivation is not akin to the types of cases -â€” such as termination of parental rights, civil commitment, or deportation â€”- where a clear and convincing evidence standard is typically imposed. Moreover, although the loss of the right to possess firearms can impact an individual’s ability to defend him- or herself, the deprivation does not leave the individual exposed to danger without recourse to other defensive measures, such as installing home security devices and summoning the police.

The court goes on to argue that balancing the consequences of a mentally unstable person having a gun, versus the temporary loss of liberty favor using preponderance of the evidence standard.

What I don’t quite understand is why, in a case like this, the “clear and convincing” standard isn’t sufficient?Â I would imagine even under that standard this guy is pretty clearly and convincingly mentally disturbed.Â I think the court also errs in assuming that substitutes are as readily effective.Â As someone in the comments point out, “Those alternatives were just as available to the residents of Washington DC, but the supreme court rejected such reasoning when presented by the DC government.”

I can understand why the judge felt the need to reach this conclusion, because this person is a poor plaintiff to be making Second Amendment claims.Â Who wants to be responsible for allowing a mentally disturbed individual access to firearms?Â But I think the standard is too low, and relegates the Second Amendment to second class status among our panoply of rights.

I’d say I hope the case is appealed, but this plaintiff is awful.Â It would be ideal to appeal a better case, but we might not get ideal.